trippwj

Dear Waldemar, I am so glad you decided to remain in the debate and not find other things to do. As regards the 1620 treatise which you seem fixed on, we should disregard it as the fixed sweep radii method described does not apply to the London.  Again, the treatise says quite clearly "We may now proceed to the drawing of the plot... in 3 several planes" (84v)". The third plane is the end view or body plan. That is very clear and it appears you keep mention of it as a diversion from explaining how the London plan was derived if it was not copied from a draught using the method described by Deane with fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth. You also asked what else would I like to know. I wish you would be so kind as to answer the question previously put to you. Please reconcile your statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765. It sounds crazy and if it is a mistake then please say so. We will not fall over laughing at your embarrassment but have the deepest sympathy and understanding.

So, in view of Waldemar not finding any reason to the contrary, it is safe to say the London's body plan must have come from somewhere and that it was copied from an original draught that the draughtsman has added detail to make decorative. The body plan lines have minor discrepancies but are exactly what one would expect for the draughting method using fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth as described by Deane's treatise. I have mentioned many other plans in this thread of a similar nature.
I am sorry that Waldemar is too busy to continue and reconcile his statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765? With the deepest empathy, it appears Waldmar made a mistake and wishes not to address the problem. That is absolutely fine and I would not criticize him for that. As said earlier, I am only too ready to be a student and learn new things when persuaded by convincing argument. Live, learn and enjoy the pleasure of debate, I have.

Thank God I ain't a scholar. Me bottom of the class at school in Maths and English. School reports "must try harder" "more work, less chatter" a naughty boy, still am I hope. Bit knackered at the moment, done about 10 miles over the hills and through the woods to end up getting stuffed with food and filled with well-earned drink. And so to bed, as my hero would say.

Dear Waldemar, I quote you "The London 1656 body plan is by no means a copy of some other, e.g. builder's plans, as body plans on paper were not yet made at that time".  Although not applicable to London, the 1620 treatise has a body plan on paper, it really does, as plain as the nose on your face, even if it is interpreted as showing only one. As Brian Lavery said, Deane's work gives us the earliest complete plan of an English ship so it is unlikely any other plans survive from before that to present to you as evidence for your judgment. However, the London was designed in the method described by Deane and the London drawing has body plans made in the same manner. I deferentially ask you again, how else was it made? As the acknowledged best expert around, you say its "obvious inaccuracies" mean it can't be a true body plan. If it's so inaccurate then pray tell us, how did you manage to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765?
 
Just remembered, I think one of the Keltridge draughts is of an early fourth rate, another which will undoubtedly satisfy your curiosity is the very clear and precise body plans of a 1677 ship complete with timber heads and sirmarks by Thomas Fagge and reproduced in Master Shipwright's Secrets, page 194. I really hope this helps answer your questions and eagerly look forward to your reply. Great debate init.

There's a big difference between a scholar and a researcher, IMHO.   Scholars generally seem to be living in their own world and need to justify their beliefs and writings.  A researcher generally follows the evidence and ideas.   I say this from having worked with both a long time ago. I say "generally" as there are exceptions to everything.

Waldermare appears to agree with my note (I think) he even repeats what I said. I would point out that a mould is the same as a template and if you are drawing lots of equally sized radii then using such a device saves time over using compasses whether on paper or in the mould loft. We should ignore the 1620 method in this debate with 3 fixed radii sweeps as it was not the method used on the London, but even in 1620, body plans were drawn as the author described. As mentioned earlier, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. Not only that but Deane describes drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow the actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would he have described body plans if they were not used? Please explain to this poor unfortunate student how the body plans mentioned above were produced if not by Deane's method.

Intrigued by the 1620 comments I had a quick browse over breakfast this morning. As suspected, the author not only includes the side and top views but also the body plans. In drawing the plot he mentions the 3 views and says the vertical plane of the depth and breadth is the plane of the bends (84v). Then "we must begin with the midship bend...out of which all the rest are drawn" (85v).  However, and I guess this is the cause of a Eureka moment, the design method should not be applied to the London's body plans as it relates to the earlier method of whole moulding where all three sweeps forming the bends are of fixed radius. The London having varying sweeps at the breadth. He then describes the rest of the plot and says the plot is finished, but then goes on to say "To draw therefore out of the midship bends all the rest according to the true draught of the plot" he then mentions using the arithmetic data from the rising and narrowing lines (93v). This could be interpreted as meaning the rest of the bends were marked out in a mould loft but I didn't notice or see if he says that in the text. Be that as it may, the ealy designers used a body plan although this method was not used to produce the London's body plan. So back in the real world I am just off with some mates for a walk in the Chiltern hills starting and ending at the Black Lion pub in Naphill, Buckinghamshire. I will be in there about 1.30 and if any of you are around I will buy you a drink.

Doing some late night wandering on the Net, stumbled across this.  It might interesting for those who don't know who the ship was named after.
 
The first woman dubbed First Lady was actually not the wife of a US president, but his niece! Harriet Lane, the niece of James Buchanan, is believed to be the first woman referred to using the title of First Lady. Buchanan was a lifelong bachelor who took over care of Lane after she was orphaned when she was 11 years old. Lane began to run in "fashionable circles" after moving in with Buchanan, who was the Secretary of State at the time. In 1854, Lane moved to London with Buchanan, where he was minister to the Court of St. James. Queen Victoria gave her the rank of an ambassador's wife, which would continue on into Lane's time in the White House, where she became incredibly popular and proved to be skilled when it came to hosting events.

In 1860, Frank Leslie’s Popular Monthly described Lane as "The Lady of the White House, and by courtesy, the First Lady of the Land." By the 1870s, the term was widely used. Although most signs point to Lane being the first woman to be called First Lady, there is a bit of discrepancy in the matter. According to some historians, Andrew Jackson referred to Dolley Madison, wife of James Madison, as First Lady when delivering her eulogy in 1849. Others believe that the First Lady label was truly popularized in coverage of Lucy Webb Hayes, the wife of Rutherford B. Hayes.

I agree we need some time off to get some stuff done. I read the 1620 treatise a while ago but don't recall any amazing revelations and I don't feel like getting into it in a big way right now and reading the whole thing again. Please give us a page number as a clue. The London book was being written by a group of us including archaeologists and historians while Frank Fox was writing  a chapter about the guns. We were all doing our bit with proceeds going to the London Trust. Unfortunately poor Frank died rather suddenly and we are in bit of a hiatus at the moment. Waldemar, there is no need to call me "Mr Endsor", as a valued colleague please call me Richard.

I must say I have enjoyed our conversations and indeed find Waldemars contribution important and interesting. He has stimulated us all into forming our own opinions. When I write about the London I think it best not to mention the drafting process that may have created the lines. Just mention they look genuine but have irregularities that are difficult to interpret. This thread continues as some of us think they didn't use body plans in the seventeenth century. As this point in time I think they did, but I won't be putting a tin hat on and jumping in a bunker to defend the position to the last.
Unfortunately, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. When the Admiralty wanted the shape of the new ships recorded in 1678 they took the body plans off the ships. Not only that but Deane and the 1620 period treatise (PRO ADM7/827) both describe drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would they have described body plans if they were not used? You could argue that no plan was necessary at all as the results of the calculated rising and narrowing lines are all you need together with a list of overall dimensions. This is all John Shish's paper(Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson MSS,A185,f325) has describing a fourth rate. But you have no idea what the ship looked like from that until its developed and drawn out on paper. Even if the side and top view were drawn then it's almost impossible to judge what the ships form looked like. It's very difficult without water lines, which are not mentioned in the treatise. Just about impossible without a body plan. The plans were approved by Kings, and King Charles was a know authority who studied the  ships draughts. Not only that but the body plans are necessary to know where the heads and heels of the frame timbers would go. You could argue body plans were only drawn in the mould loft, in spite of the treatise saying they are drawn plots, but by then it's a bit late to study the hull form.  In any case it would be the same as studying a 1/48 plan with your eye only 1 1/2 inches from it. Almost impossible. 
There we are Chaps, opinions welcome.

Time to whip the cloth off the table and leave the lunch in the fridge.
The dog has its bone and isn't going to let it go.
 
Tomorrow is another day,
so can we start over?

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

No body plans until 1700? take a look at Anthony Deane 1670 p67. The London drawing itself is a body plan. Or have I missed something? There are body Plans in Fragments of Ancient Shipwrightry. Below is our friend Mungo Murray's 1754 body plan of 100 years after the London. Just had a quick look but I couldn't find any mention of the sweep centre point method although he does have a chapter on whole moulding associated with using rising and narrowing lines.

Hello,
I came across this thread and found it quite intriguing. I was hoping to gather your thoughts on a potential connection with the ship model located in the Maritime Museum in Sweden, which is attributed to Francis Sheldon. Sheldon was known for his involvement in the construction of London before relocating to Sweden. It's worth mentioning that the dimensions of London and Sheldon's model are quite similar.
Apparently, the lines of the model were measured back in the 1930s, but I am uncertain about the accuracy of the plan. Although, it might be useful to examine the underwater part, as it appears to be very round. You can find the plans here: https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024828744/ritning and https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024828745/ritning
I've learned that there have been two attempts in recent years to measure or create a 3D reconstruction of the model. One was done by Dr. Kroum Batchvarov, and I would love to learn more about his research in this area. Additionally, a 3D scan was done in 2022 and is yet to be made public.

Dear Waldemar,
I think we were beginning to entertain readers of this forum with some amusing confrontation. Let me say, I am truly mortified if I have offended you. You are a colleague who makes very good points, you are not an opponent.  Before getting on to the London, let me say, I bought Brian's  Ship of the Line and Frank Fox's book Great Ships in 1985 to take with me when I was going abroad to work in the aerospace industry. They got me interested in making a model of Lenox and one thing led to another. They both have little mistakes, Brian's caption on page 19 does not agree with the image. I would love your opinion on this as its out of my period of interest. This may not be Brain's fault as publishers make more errors than the author. Both these wonderful books are outdated in being published in black and white and if new editions were made today they would be brought up to date. I originally said in this forum that Brian's book was a trail blazer and stand by that and hope you agree. Your Item 3 of my misdemeanors misquote me and reckon I changed from "surely" to "usually". It was Mungo Murray (what a great name) who said "usually" in 1754, I quoted him. I honestly have no intention of using what you say are "eristic tricks", mainly because I don't know what the word means.  I try to tell it as it is.
Which brings us to the most enjoyable purpose of our lively debate, the London. I think we are making progress and I agree with Martes, it seems most probable that the creator of the surviving drawing copied the original draught after the Restoration in 1660. His work on the end views (I have never seen the term "body plan" used in the 17th C) was far from perfect and he drew inconsistent lines. He then embellished his work by adding decoration without actually seeing the ship. So the general structural layout is correct but imaginative in detail. He also appears to have added his own idea of cross pillars and oversize guns etc. When analysing the sweeps of the of the floors they are found to vary in radius in an apparent method known to have been introduced c1765 and completely different from seventeenth century practice, which used a fixed radius sweep.  The varying radius sweeps may well be coincidence as other known seventeenth century sources do not describe this later method.
I hope this summary sums up our debate. I have found it valuable as being a trustee of The London Shipwreck Trust I try my best to help them. If a model maker wishes to make a model that can be shown at Southend I will help all I can. I have to confess to working on what the ship looked like for some time which will go into a book about the London. The other wreck of interest is the Gloucester, a third rate of the same type as the early NMM model referred to by Martes, which he says should be recorded. Guess where I was last week with the device shown on page 125 of Master Shipwright's Secrets. Although models are far from ideal as reference, the model is the nearest we are likely to get for the Gloucester. I hope this forum and the expertise in it will enjoy helping with this. By the way, I am interested to know why Martens calls her the Antelope? 
 

Dear Waldemar, You are a tease who can cheerfully ignore admitting the floor sweeps of Bellona 1754 on image 2 in Brian Lavery's book are all the same radii. They clearly are the same radius and follow seventeenth century practice. What you are describing is mentioned by Brian Lavery, Ship of the Line II, Page 21, first column "Around 1765 a new line, known as the centres of the floor sweep, begins to appear on draughts". That's over a 100 years after the London was built. She surely would have been built according to the fixed radius floor sweep method, as Brian further records on page 19 "It is usual for all the floors sweeps to be of one radius, (ref25 Mungo Murray 1754)". Come on Waldermar, put a smile on your face, be friends and please agree the London must have had a fixed floor sweep radius. I am happy to admit my ignorance in that I never knew about this 1765 practice as I stick firmly in the seventeenth century and never stray out of period or country as its so very, very easy to be misled, as you have here. As for the differences between English and foreign practices, take a look at 18th Century Shipbuilding by Blaise Ollivier ed David Roberts. A bookful of differences between English, Dutch and French practice. I am also sorry for appearing to indicate the London drawings are not authentic. What I meant to say, they definitely date from the seventeenth century but as the late, great Frank Fox said, they may not be be an accurate copy of the original ships plans. I really appreciate our dialogue as I have learnt something today, even if its out of my period. Stay happy, and remember we study ship building for pleasure.

Thanks Druxy, I believe that in order to understand a subject fully its no good being interested in just one genre, such as model making. You need to engage with art, shipbuilding, history and archaeology. It takes years to do but well worth pleasure of doing so.

Every best wish for a successful March 4 rally! Unfortunately many of us do not live in the U.K. and won't be able to attend.

Hello London enthusiasts. I reckon we can pursue our enquiries and come to a good conclusion Most importantly, we should always go back to original source material when pursuing a theory, not use what I or Brian may have dreamt up. Firstly to answer a question about Riff's dimensions, The keel length is given in Pepys Register of ships in Magdalen College, Cambridge as 123' 6" Breadth 41' 0" and Depth in hold 16' 6" while another list NMM CLU/9 gives the keel as 123' 0" and the same dimensions for the rest. As for the radii of the floor sweep, take a look at Brian Lavery's Ship of the Line II page 19 where he says in the caption for image 2 Body Plan that the floor sweeps are reduced in diameter(sic). Then take a ruler and measure the clearly marked floor sweeps of said illustration and I make them all to be the same at 13mm. Please check for yourselves as we need to agree our understanding of a floor sweep is the same. Be careful not to measure to a diagonal line on the aft side. Check all the other contemporary plans you can find. Then consider the way moulds were made in the method describes in Shipwright's Repository. Remember Brian wrote his book in the late 1970's when the understanding of such matters was largely forgotten and he blazed the trail for us. Seventeenth century plans do have what look like diagonals but they are in fact the heads and heels of futtocks and toptimbers. The first known evidence of checking lines with water lines appears about 1680 but the method of plotting them must have been well know way before that in order to plot the contours of the transoms. Waldemar may well be right in finding the floor sweep varies, in which case Frank Fox was correct in believing the plan is not authentic. Alternatively perhaps Waldemar could use the best fit floor sweep. I suggest the plan has so many anonmoles that to create the rising and narrowing lines is almost impossible. And why would you? the rising and narrowing lines were drawn first to create the sweeps and the sweeps are there already.

Oh yes, a bit got cut off. I tried to say that there is a London day at Southend on 4 March organised by Save the London. There will be a day of talks by archaeologists and historians and many of the recovered artefacts will be on display. The event is easily found on the net and I think it only costs £3.50 entry. I have given talks there in the past and will do so again next year, if anyone from this forum attends it will be a pleasure to meet you there.

THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO REPLIED. I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE WORKSHOP HAS BEEN SOLD AND IS GOING TO A VERY GOOD HOME!  BEST OF LUCK TO YOU ALL. 

I know clue and clew have been used interchangeably but from what I can find clew came first.   
When did clew become clue?
The spelling clue is first attested mid-15c. The sense shift is originally in reference to the clew of thread given by Ariadne to Theseus to use as a guide out of the Labyrinth in Greek mythology. 
What this has to do with the corner of a sail, I have no idea.
 
Allan

Like Baker, I too have an extensive library of maritime history books.  I began buying books by Howard Chapelle in my 20’s and have continued ever since.  In 2018, I joined the ranks of authors the first (and last)book that I wrote was published by an academic press.  In several ways, books are like ship model kits.  Many model builders never have enough of them and their value is not in paper and cardboard (or plywood and sticks) but in the work that the author spent  accumulating and sharing the knowledge that they contain.  These books are specialized and in most cases neither the authors or publishers are getting rich from them.  In my case I enjoyed my 15 minutes of fame twice when my book was selected for two awards.  Financially 4-1/2 years after publication the payment to the person hired to index the book has exceeded the royalties paid or owed to me.  This is not a complaint,  I don’t need the money and take great pleasure knowing that my research on a unique Great Lakes ship type will be available to scholars, model builders, etc long after I am gone.
 
Over the years, I have bought my share of “how to” ship modeling books but have disposed of most of them as I find their lasting value and to be limited.  I did buy the recent book by Rob Napier published by Seawatch and am eagerly looking forward to reading it.  At the other end of the book spectrum I really like published reports of maritime Archeology research of which the Mary Rose Book reviewed by Baker and included in my library, is an outstanding example.  As these are even more specialized than run of the mill maritime history books, by necessity, they are more expensive.
 
if Ferrus Marcus is interested in building a model of a Spanish Galleon I would recommend the “Underwater Archeology of Red Bay” published by Parks Canada and distributed in the USA by Casemate Books.  This book describes excavation of an actual Spanish vessel of the mid-late 1500’s.  There is enough information within, including separate drawings to build a model incorporating all known historically accurate information.
 
Roger
 
 
 

According to the Byrnes website:
The Byrnes Disc Sander has an integrated 1.5" dust port, and is powered by a 90V DC motor. All our machines are backed by our 1-year warranty.